Polygamy  Not  of  €rod 


The  series  of  Letters  of  which  this  Tract  is  the  closing  one,  was  begun  by  the  pub  ication 
of  an  "Open  Letter  to  Joseph  Smith  and  others,"  written  by  Elder  L.  0.  Llttlt field,  of  the 
Church  in  Utah,  and  printed  in  the  "Utah  Journal,"  Logan,  Cache  Co.,  Utah,  dated  April 
2Vth,  1883.  Four  of  Mr.  Littlefield's  letters  and  three  of  Mr.  Smith's  were  published  in  the 
"Journal,"  and  "Deseret  Evening  News"  of  Salt  Lake  City;  but  Mr.  Smith's  fourth  letter 
(this  tract)  was  declined  by  the  "Journal"  management,  because  they  thought  that  the  Cor- 
respondence had  been  prolonged  far  enough;  that  the  publication  of  it  further  in  their  col- 
umns might  "surfeit"  their  subscribers.  This  refusal  to  publish  Mr.  Smith's  last  letter  was 
deemed  unfair,  and  for  the  purpose  that  those  who  might  wish,  could  have  it  to  read,  this 
Tract  is  published.  All  the  Letters  were  published  in  the  "Saints'  Herald"  at  Lamoni,  Iowa. 


• 

[Rejected  by  the  Utah  Journal], 
JOSEPH  SMITH'S  FOURTH  LETTER  TO 


-L. 


0.  LfTTLEFIELD. 


MR.  L.  0.  LITTLEFIELD  :  Sir. — I  am  not  sur- 
prised that  you  do  not  like  the  continued  reiter- 
ation of  the  Word  of  God  from  the  Book  of  Mor- 
mon. That  book  is  one  of  the  essential  features 
of  Mormonism.  It  should  be  to  you  and  all  other 
Mormons  what  the  Koran  is  to  Mohammedans, 
the  Bible  to  Christians— the  end  of  dispute.  With- 
out it  the  Mormon  Church  had  not  been  born.  It 
is  the  Golden  Bible  to  the  devout  Mormon.  From 
it  I  have  the  undoubted  right  to  select  those  por- 
tions of  the  text  that  confirm  and  sustain  my  faith 
in  Christ  as  primitive  Mormonism  has  revealed 
him.  The  word  of  God  to  the  Church,  in  the  rev- 
elation charging  the  Church  to  remember  the 
Book  of  Mormon,  to  "do  according  to  that  which  I 
have  written,"  is  directly  applicable  to  the  matter 
in  dispute  between  us.  In  that  revelation  the  will 
of  God  touching  the  conduct  of  the  Church  is 
plainly  stated — too  plainly  to  suit  you,  hence 
your  dislike  to  my  quoting  it.  The  only  reason  I 
assign  for  not  quoting  the  whole,  as  complained  of 
by  you,  is  that  I  desired  to  make  my  letter  as 
short  as  possible  to  cover  the  points  I  tried  to 
make.  At  the  risk  of  invoking  another  reproof 
from  you  for  quoting  such  passages  as  suit  my  side 
of  the  controversy,  I  cite : 

"And  now  it  came  to  pass  that  the  people  of 
Nephi,  under  the  reign  of  the  second  king,  began 
to  grow  hard  in  their  hearts,  and  indulge  them- 
selves somewhat  in  wicked  practices,  such  as  like 
unto  David  of  old,  desiring  many  wives  and  con- 
cubines, as  also  Solomon,  his  son.  *  *  *  Where- 
fore, I,  Jacob,  gave  unto  them  these  words  as  I 
taught  them  in  the  temple,  having  first  obtained 
mine  errand  from  the  Lord." 

This  errand  from  the  Lord,  Jacob  essayed  to  per- 
form. In  doing  so  he  states  the  object  for  which 
the  people  were  led  out  of  Jerusalem. 

"Wherefore,  thus  saith  the  Lord,  I  have  led  this 
people  forth  out  of  the  land  of  Jerusalem,  by  the 
power  of  mine  arm,  that  I  might  raise  up  unto  me 
a  righteous  branch  from  the  fruit  of  the  loins  of 
Joseph."— B.  of  M.,  Jacob  2 :  6,  7. 

The  nature  of  the  corruption  existing  among  the 
Nephites,  which  was  reproved  by  Jacob,  was 
stated  by  him  at  the  time  his  reproof  was  given. 
Your  explanation  of  it  is  not  according  to  the 
record  itself.  Whatever  credit  others  may  give  to 
you  as  qualified  to  explain  away  the  damaging 


eifect  of  the  words  of  the  Lord  through  Jacob,  I 
do  not  trust  you.  The  arts  of  sophistry  employed 
by  you  are  too  transparent,  the  results  too  ruinous 
to  be  accepted.  To  show  you  what  I  mean  by  this 
I  quote  what  you  assert  I  refrained  from  doing  for 
fear  the  "keystone  of  ihe  arch  of  my  argument 
would  fall  out." 

"Wherefore,  [for  which  reason],  saith  the  Lord, 
if  I  will  raise  up  seed  unto  me,  I  will  command 
my  people;  otherwise  ['in  a  different  manner,  un- 
der different  circumstances,  in  different  respects'] 
they  shall  hearken  uato  these  things." 

Instead  of  the  closing  clause  of  this  sentence  be- 
ing a  prophecy,  as  you  assert,  it  bears  no  mark 
warranting  such  assertion.  The  purpose  of  "rais- 
ing up  a  righteous  branch  unto  him,"  had  already 
been  stated  by  the  Lord.  It  was  for  this  that  he 
led  them  out  from  the  people  of  Jerusalem.  It 
was  for  this  that  he  reproved  their  departure  from 
the  law  given  at  the  outset.  The  language  of 
Jacob's  commendation  of  the  Lamanites  in  which 
he  states,  "For  they  have  not  forgotten  the  com- 
mandment of  the  Lord,  which  was  given  unto  our 
fathers,  that  they  should  have,  save  it  were  one 
wife,  and  concubines  they  should  have  none," 
points  to  that  rule  as  one  commanded  long  before 
Jacob's  indictment  against  the  Nephites,  and  shows 
its  imperative  character.  The  corruption  which 
Jacob  reproves  is  precisely  that  of  David  and  Sol- 
omon^ which  God  said  he  would  not  suffer.  The 
command  is  sweeping  and  comprehensive :  "There 
shall  not  any  man  among  you  have  save  it  be  one 
wife,  and  concubines  he  shall  have  none."  The 
reason  assigned,  "For  I,  the  Lord  God,  delighteth 
in  the  chastity  of  women." 

The  sophistry  upon  this  question  is  on  your  part, 
not  mine.  The  language  of  the  text  will  not  bear 
the  strained  construction  you  put  upon  it.  The 
whole  sentence  taken  with  its  connections  can 
mean  nothing  more  than  this.  The  Lord  had 
wearied  of  their  sin.  He  set  the  task  upon  the 
prophet  Jacob  to  reprove  it.  In  doing  this  He 
uses  plain  language  and  does  not  indulge  in  double 
meaning  words.  That  which  he  declares  is  like 
what  he  declared  elsewhere.  I  am  God  I  will 
command  my  people.  They  shall  hearken  unto- 
my  words.  This  is  the  only  force  the  words  have. 
The  word  "otherwise,"  upon  which  you  predicate 
your  statement  that  it  is  a  prophecy,  because  it 
suits  your  side  of  the  case,  used  in  .two  of  its  sen- 
ses, as  given  by  Webster,  is  equivalent  to  the  say- 
ing that  "under  different  circumstances,"  and  "in 
different  respects,"  my  people  "shall  hearken  un- 


POLYGAMY  NOT  OF  GOD. 


to  these  things."  The  statement,  '•!  will  command 
my  people,"  is  affirmative  only  of  the  fixed  deter- 
mination of  God  to  be  obeyed.  If  your  theory 
about  this  sentence  was  right,  it  would  render 
void  and  meaningless  the  terrible  indictment  of 
Jacob.  Such  rendition  would  destroy  the  force  of 
the  statement  that  it  was  for  the  purpose  of  rais- 
ing a  righteous  seed  unto  him  of  the  loins  of  Joseph. 
It  would,  by  antithetical  reasoning,  declare  that 
the  seed  he  was  then  trying  to  raise  up  by  mono- 
gamic  law,  was  not  his;  and  that  he  would  have 
none  until  he  commanded  contrary  to  the  strict 
law  then  obtaining.  "For  if  I  will,"  construed  as 
you  state  it,  would  mean  that  he  had  not  at  that 
time  willed  to  raise  up  a  righteous  seed  to  himself; 
but  that  when  he  would  so  tcill  he  would  do  so  by 
giving  a  law  contrary  to  and  conflicting  with  the 
commandment  he  then  gave.  • 

The  statement  that  the  polygamic  practices  of 
the  Hebrew  race  were  "not  known  among  the  Ne- 
phites"  is  too  glaring  to  pass  without  notice. 
What  means  the  language,  "They  seek  to  excuse 
themselves  because  of  the  things  written  of  David 
and  Solomon?"  They  understand  not  the  Scrip- 
tures?" "I  will  not  suffer  that  this  people  shall 
do  like  unto  them  of  old?" 

The  discovery  that  there  are  "two  kinds  of 
plural  marriage,"  is  unique,  and  worthy  of  the 
eause  you  advocate.  David  and  Solomon  prac- 
ticed these  two  kinds,  so  you  say.  Please  tell  me 
when  David  began  to  practice  the  one  and  ceased 
to  practice  the  other?  Also  please  state  at  what 
period  of  Solomon's  life  was  he  practicing  the  one 
and  abstaining  from  the  other. 

It  is  ft  very  strange  thing  that  while  you  admit 
the  premises  of  the  argument  of  my  last  letter, 
that  Adam,  Noah,  Lehi  are  all  examples  of  God's 
establishment  of  the  monogamic  principle;  and 
that  under  the  dispensations  then  inaugurated 
plural  marriage  would  have  been  a  sin,  that  you 
can  still  say  that  it  is  no  argument  "against 
polygamy." 

The  same  kind  of  argument  would  destroy  the 
basis  and  fabric  of  every  created  thing.  For  in- 
stance: God  created  man  as  we  now  see  him,  one 
head,  two  eyes,  one  mouth,  two  ears,  two  arms, 
two  lege,  &c.  But  this  is  no  argument  that  God 
did  not  intend  that  a  man  might  not  have  two 
heads,  four  eyes,  four  legs,  four  arms,  four  ears, 
&c.  Yet  every  departure  from  the  established 
form  is  a  monstrosity,  a  deformity,  &  lapsus  naturae 
The  vine  was  created  to  bear  grapes,  the  fig  tree 
figs;  but  this  is  no  argument  that  man  may  not 
gather  "grapes  of  thorns  and  figs  of  thistles." 
God  "set  some  in  the  Church,  first  apostles,  sec- 
ondarily prophets,  after  that  pastors"  &c. ;  but 
that  is  no  argument  but  what  there  may  be  in  the 
church  popes,  cardinals,  prelates,  curates,  sees,  &c. 

I  cling  so  tenaciously  to  the  Word  of  God  in  the 
Book  of  Mormon;  because  in  direct  harmony  with 
the  law  of  marriage  as  defined  by  Jacob,  is  the  law 
given  to  the  Church  "in  the  fulness  of  times,"  as 
found  in  the  Doctrine  and  Covenants.  It  is  also  in 
keeping  with  the  dispensations  of  Adam,  Noah, 
and  Christ. 

Here  I  present  what  may  have  escaped  your 
memory,  that  in  the  coming  forth  of  the  Book  of 
Mormon,  the  conferring  of  the  authority  to  preach 
the  gospel,  and  the  establishing  of  the  Church  in 
these  ;iast  days,  the  fact  was  presented  that  the 


Adamic  dispensation  was  a  gospel  one.  That  the 
gospel  was  before  the  law.  That  the  law  was  ad- 
ded because  of  transgression,  and  that  the  fruitful 
cause  of  God's  displeasure  towards  the  people  and 
the  giving  of  the  law  was  the  breaking  of  and  de- 
parture from  the  everlasting  covenant,  the  gospel. 
That  Noah  was  a  preacher  of  the  gospel;  and  that 
the  world  was  deluged  to  death  because  it  rejected 
his  gospel  administration.  That  in  Christ  the  law 
which  had  been  added  as  a  school-master  was 
ended.  That  the  dispensation  of  Christ  was  also 
a  gospel  dispensation.  It  so  happens  that  you 
have  admitted  all  this  substantially.  It  follows 
then  that  in  each  of  these  gospel  dispensations  the 
monogamio  rule  prevailed  by  the  design  and  in- 
troduction of  God.  You  also  admit  that  Lehi  and 
Jacob's  dispensation  on  this  land  was  monogamic. 
It  is  also  in  proof  that  in  the  establishing  the  gos- 
pel economy  through  Joseph  Smith  in  1830,  it  was 
again  instituted  as  monogamic.  No  surer  evidence 
that  in  a  gospel  dispensation  monogamy  was  God's 
plan  and  will  ought  to  be  asked  by  any  mortal  be- 
ing. 

One  of  the  marks  upon  the  revelation  which  you 
claim  as  the  basis  of  plural  marriage,  which  war- 
rants my  conclusion  that  it  is  not  from  God  is  that 
it  contradicts  the  rule  obtaining  in  each  and  every 
gospel  dispensation.  It  can  not  be  from  God  for 
it  is  not  like  him  It  contradicts  all  former  reve- 
lations from  God  upon  the  same  subject.  If  the 
phrase  "I  will  command  my  people,"  was  pro- 
phetic, it  is  far  more  reasonable,  and  more  in 
harmony  with  God's  characteristics  as  revealed  by 
the  revelations  to  the  Church,  to  believe  that  the 
command  of  1831,  which  "was  to  be  a  law  to  them 
then  and  in  the  New  Jerusalem,"  "was  given  in 
fulfillment  of  said  prophecy,  than  to  believe  the 
labored  construction  you  put  upon  it.  For  the 
command  of  1831  is  like  the  one  given  to  Lehi;  is 
like  the  gospel  dispensations  of  the  past;  and  in 
accordance  with  the  examples  set  by  God  when 
he  essayed  to  people  the  earth. 

David  Fulmer  does  not  state  that  the  revelation 
on  celestial  marriage  was  presented  to  the  High 
Council  at  Nauvoo,  August  12th,  1843,  by  my 
father's  "knowledge  and  consent."  The  state- 
ment made  in  the  affidavit,  is  that  on  the  conven- 
ing of  the  High  Council  that  day,  Dunbar  Wilson, 
who  had  heard  some  rumors  about  plural  wifery, 
made  inquiry  about  those  rumors.  Upon  this  in- 
quiry Hyrum  Smith  went  to  his  house,  got  a  copy 
of  the  revelation  and  read  it  to  the  council,  bear- 
ing testimony  to  its  truth.  Leonard  Soby,  Austin 
Cowles,  and  William  Marks  would  not  receive  it, 
nor  the  testimony  of  Hyrum  Smith.  Father  was 
not  there.  The  revelation  was  not  submitted  by 
him  nor  with  his  "knowledge  and  consent.  '  The 
presentation  of  it,  so  far  as  Mr.  Fulmer's  affidavit 
is  concerned,  was  prematurely  forced  upon  Hyrum 
Smith.  It  was  not  formally  presented  by  call  of 
the  Seer  in  an  official  manner,  to  test  us  validity. 
Is  this  copy  the  one  that  was  made  by  Joseph 
Kingsbury,  kept  by  N.  K.  Whitney,  until  after 
his  death  it  fell  into  Pres.  B.  Young's  hands?  Is 
it  the  copy  made  by  William  Clayton  and  kept  by 
Pres.  B.  Young  in  his  private  desk  on  which  he 
had  a  patent  lock?  Is  it  the  copy  of  which  Emma 
Smith  burned  the  original?  An  original  which 
she  states  she  never  saw.  Mr.  Littlefield,  when 
you  made  this  false  statement  respecting  what  Mr. 


POLYGAMY  NOT  OF  GOD. 


Fulmer  stated  in  his  affidavit,  did  you  forget  that 
you  had  published  a  copy,  and  that  I  could  read 
the  English  language? 

Let  me  repeat,  though  you  do  not  like  it,  there 
is  no  scriptural  evidence  that  Abraham  was  a 
polygamiet.  Sarah  was  his  wife  until  she  died; 
Keturah  after  Sarah's  death.  Hagar  was  his  con- 
cubine, not  his  wife. 

Whatever  God  may  have  said  to  Sarai  as  stated 
by  Josephus,  quoted  by  you,  it  was  not  by  any 
prophet's  hand,  nor  the  hand  of  a  king^  that 
Abram  received  Hagar.  It  was  Sarai  who  took 
the  Egyptian  slave  to  his  bed.  But  your  witness 
proves  too  much  for  your  case,  for  he  also  states 
that  when  Sarah  decided  that  Hagar  must  go, 
Abraham  agreed  to  it  because  "God  was  pleased 
with  what  Sarah  had  determined."  Josephus,  B. 
1,  c.  12.  More  than  this,  the  sagacious  servant  of 
Abraham  when  making  his  statement  to  Laban, 
said  of  Isaac,  "He  is  his  (Abraham's)  1-egitimate 
son;  and  is  brought  up  as  his  only  heir."  Ibid  c. 
16.  Josephus  places  the  marriage  of  Abraham 
and  Keturah  after  Sarah's  death. 

So  far  as  Moses  is  concerned,  it  is  clear  that  the 
daughter  of  Jethro,  was  an  Ethiopian  woman. 
This  woman  Moses  married  before  his  return  to 
Egypt;  and  there  is  no  record  of  his  having  taken 
any  other. 

The  allusion  made  in  Numbers  12,  is  made  in 
relating  the  history  of  the  people  while  yet  they 
were  in  the  wilderness;  and  the  sentence  "the 
Ethiopian  woman  whom  he  had  married,"  more 
reasonably  applies  to  Zipporah,  to  whom  Moses 
was  a  "bloody  husband,"  because  he  had  circum- 
cised her  children,  than  to  a  second  orconcubinal 
wife  Besides  this,  if  he  had  married  a  second 
wife  who  was  an  Ethippian  woman,  he  would  have 
had  two  of  the  same  race.  In  that  case  Miriam'? 
reproach  would  have  been  that  he  had  married 
two  Ethiopian  women,  not  "the  woman."  Your 
readers  will  do  well  to  read  Numbers,  12  and 
Exodus  2,  without  your  befogged  spectacles,  Mr. 
Littlefield.  The  inference  that  Zipporah  and  the 
Ethiopian  woman  named  in  Numbers  12  are  two 
separate  women,  and  thus  make  two  wives  for 
Moses  in  order  to  fasten  polygamy  upon  him,  is 
not  tenable. 

Why  should  you  state  what  is  so  easily  disproved 
concerning  Jacob's  marriage.  Rachel  and  not 
Leah  was  Jacob's  real  wife.  Leah  was  palmed  off 
upon  Jacob  by  the  designing  Laban.  "Did  I  not 
serve  thee  for  Rachal,"  was  Jacob's  indignant  re- 
monstrance. Nor  is  it  true  that  Leah  was  Jacob's 
wife  in  any  sense  for  seven  years  before  he  obtain- 
ed Rachel.  The  hard  necessities  of  your  cause 
make  you  to  stumble  in  your  statements.  Jacob, 
recognizing  the  fact  that  Laban  had  deceived  him, 
and  had  the  powor  to  enforce  the  advantage  gained 
over  him,  and  fearful  that  he  might  lose  Rachel, 
submitted  to  "fulfill"  Leah's  "week;"  at  the  end 
of  which  "week"  he  was  married  to  Rachel,  for 
whom  he  continued  to  serve  the  seven  years  en- 
forced by  Laban.  In  the  eyes  of  God,  and  good 
men,  Rachel  was  Jacob's  real  wife,  and  the  ac- 
cepting of  Joseph  and  Benjamin,  in  whom  the 
succession  is  named  is  proof,  not  that  God  sanction- 
ed polygamy,  but  that  he  had  respect  to  the  marital 
betrothal  of  these  two,  Jacob  and  Rachel. 

The  first  wife  given  to  David  was  Michal, 
and  she  was  the  gift  of  Saul.  Saul  in  David's 


enforced  absence  married  her  to  Phalli.  Was  she 
David's  wife?  After  Nabal's  death  David  took 
Abigal,  and  Ahinoam  after  Samuel's  death. 

Let  me  call  your  attention  to  what  I  presume 
has  escaped  you.  The  relation  of  David's  taking 
the  wife  of  Uriah  to  be  his  wife,  as  you  admit, 
and  as  it  is  stated  in  the  so-called  revelation  on 
plural  wives  was  a  grievous  wrong  and  not  in 
harmony  with  the  theory  of  plural  marriage,  but 
in  contravention  of  those  laws  which  you  hold  to 
in  regard  to  marriage.  She  is  not  reckoned  as 
his  wife  legitimately  by  you,  neither  by  the  mono- 
gamic  rule,  nor  the  one  called  by  you  the  right- 
eous polygamic  law.  David's  successor  was  not 
the  son  of  any  one  of  his  polygamic  wives  as  you 
count  them;  but  was  the  fruit  of  his  loins  by 
Bathsheba,  the  wife  of  Uriah.  It  was  her  son 
Solomon  who  succeeded  to  King  David.  If  then 
polygamy  is  approved  of  God  because  David  had 
more  than  one  wife ;  then  by  a  parity  of  reasoning, 
the  connection  between  David  and  Solomon's 
mother  is  approved,  and  the  means  by  which  she 
became  his  polygamic  wife  is  sanctioned  of  God. 
This  son  is  the  one  selected  for  the  exhibition  of 
favor.  David  murdered  Uriah  that  he  might  ob- 
tain his  wife.  Nathan,  the  one  whom  you  say 
gave  Saul's  wives  to  David,  declared  that  David 
was  a  sinner  in  the  matter,  your  revelation  also 
brands  the  transaction  as  a  sin ;  and  yet  the  issue 
of  that  marriage  is  approved  and  that  bloody  deed 
condoned  by  the  favor  and  blessing  of  God.  No 
amount  of  twisting  can  avoid  this  conclusion  being 
forced  upon  you,  if  you  insist  upon  my  acceptance 
of  your  argument.  {BOHCrOI  t  1 

I  am  no  more  convinced  now  that  Joseph  Smith, 
the  Martyr ,  practiced  "plural marriage"  or  "poly- 
gamy," as  it  is  called  and  practiced  in  Utah,  than 
I  was  before  you  opened  the  corespondence  in  the 
Journal.  You  have  produced  no  evidence  of  which 
I  have  not  been  aware  of  its  existence.  No  new 
lines  of  support  to  your  doctrine  have  been  advanc- 
ed by  you.  The  same  double  faced  statements 
and  arguments  that  others  have  presented  have 
been  revamped  by  you.  I  give  you  in  as  concise 
form  as  practicable  reasons  for  not  accepting  the 
statements  and  proofs  offered  by  you  to  prove 
that  my  father  was  a  polygamist,  and  that  the 
doctrine  has  not  divine  origin. 

1.  Joseph   Smith  was  the  human  instrument 
through  whom  a  dispensation  of  the  gospel  was 
committed  to  man. 

2.  Every  gospel  dispensation.    Adam's,   Noah's, 
Christ's,  on  the  eastern  continent,  and  Lehi's  and 
Christ's  on  the  western,    was   monogamic   in  its 
institution  of  marriage. 

3.  The  dispensation  committed  through  Joseph 
Smith  was  like  each  preceding  gospel  one,  in  its 
marriage  institution — monogamic. 

4.  Polygamy,  the  having  more  than  one  wife  at 
the  same  time,  was  specifically  forbidden  to  the 
Church   of  Christ  as  established  by  command   of 
God  in  1830,  by  Joseph  Smith  and  others.     Book 
of  Mormon,  Jacob  2d  chapter. 

5.  Monogamy,   the  having  but  one  wife  at  the 
same  time  was  instituted  in  the  Church  of  Christ 
established    in   1830,   by  direct  revelation  from 
Jesus  Christ  the  Great  Spiritual  and  Divine  Head 
of  the  Church.     Doc.  &  Cov.  sec.  13,  (42),  par.  7. 
Doc  &  Cor.,  sec.  65,  (49),  3.     Doc.   &  Cov.,   sec. 
109,  (111).     The  latter  reference  is  found   in   all 


POLYGAMY  NOT  OF  GOD. 


the  editions  of  the  Book  of  Covenants  published 
by  the  Church,  in  Europe  and  America,  except  the 
one  published  in  Utah  in  1876,  from  which  it  is 
expunged  and  the  so-called  revelation  on  polygamy 
put  in  its  place. 

6.  Monogamy  was  adopted,  and  polygamy   de- 
c  ared  to  be  a  crime  by  the  Church  in  1835,  in 
public   assembly;    and  this  action  was  endorsed 
by  the  publication  of  the  article  then  adopted,  in 
repeated  editions  of  the  Church  articles  and  cov- 
enants from  that  year   until,    and   including  the 
Liverpool  edition  published  in  1854. 

7.  No  revelation  from  God  authorizing  the  abro- 
gation of  the  monogamic  rule,  and  the  substitution 
of  the  plural  wife  system,   or  polygamy,   was   re- 
ceived, presented  to  the  Church  and  adopted  by  it 
during  the  life-time  of  Joseph  Smith. 

8.  Joseph  Smith  denounced   polygamy  in  Feb- 
ruary, 1844.     Times  and  Seasons,  vol.  5,  p.  423. 

9.  The  existence  and  teaching  of  the  doctrine  of 
plurality  of  wives  in  the  Church  atNauvoo  in  1844, 
was  publicly  denied  by  Hyrum  Smith,  one  of  the 
First  Presidency,  on  March  15th,  1844,  Times  and 
Seasons,  vol.  5,  p.  474. 

10.  The  official  organ  of  the  Church,  the'  Times 
and  Seasons,  of  April  1st,  1844,  contains  the  follow- 
ing denunciation:     "If  any  man  writes  to  you  or 
preaches  to   you,  doctrines  contrary  to  the  Bible, 
the  Book  of  Mormon,  or  the  Book  of  Doctrine  and 
Covenants,  set  him  down  as  an  impostor.  *  *  You 
need  not  wait  to  write  to  us  to  know  what  to  do  with 
such   men ;  you   have  the  authority  with  you, — 
try  them  by   the  principles  contained  in  the  ac- 
knowledged word  of  God;  if  they  preach,    or  teach, 
or  practice  contrary  to  that,  disfellowship  them ; 
?nt  them  off  from  a.ran>i~  -nr.-  .s   and   dar- 
gerous  branches."     Times  and  Seasons,  vol.   5  p. 
490.     John  Taylor,  Editor. 

11.  Polygamy  is  not  taught  in  any  part  of  the 
acknowledged  word  of  God. 

12.  Joseph  Smith  was  a  man  in  the  full  use  of 
manhood's   physical  powers,  capable  of  begetting 
children  at  the  time  of  his  death,  and  had  children 
by  bis  wife  Emma,  one  of  which  was  born  to  him 
after  his  death. 

13.  No  children  were  born  to  Joseph  Smith  by 
any  of  these  women  whom  you  assert  were  wives 
to  him  with  all  that  the  name  implies. 

14.  There  are  good  reasons  for  believing  that 
had  Joseph  Smith  been  married   to  those   whom 
you  assert  were  his  plural  wives,  issue  must  have 
resulted ;   and  the  fact  that  no  children  were  born 
to  him  in  polygamy  is  strong  proof  that  he  had  no 
such  wives;  especially  as  said  women  subsequent- 
ly bore  children  to  other  men,  no  better  physical- 
ly than  he. 

In  regard  to  the  certificates  in  your  last  letter: 
At  the  time  Lovina  Walker  made  the  statement 
respecting  what  Emma  Sin^h  told  her,  Mrs.  Smith 
was  living  and  her  testimony  could  have  been  ob- 
tained. Mrs.  Smith  stated  that  she  neither  gave 
any  woman  to  her  husband  in  marriage,  nor  knew 
of  his  having  any  wife  but  herself. 

The  affidavit  of  Emily  D.  P.  Young  is  false  upon 
its  face ;  for  at  the  time  that  she  states  that  she  was 


"married,  or  sealed  to  Joseph  Smith,  President 
of  the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  of  Latter  Day  Saints, 
by  James  Adams,  a  High  Priest  in  said  church; 
according  to  the  laws  of  the  same  regulating  mar- 
riage;" to  wit,  May  lith,  1843,  there  was  no  law 
of  said  church  permitting,  or  authorizing  plural, 
polygamous,  or  bigamous  marriages.  This  is 
proved  by  your  own  statement  that  the  revelation 
bears  date  July  12th,  1843,  two  full  months  after 
said  marriage,  or  sealing  took  place;  and  by  such 
giving  of  the  "revelation  the  law  of  plural  mar- 
riage was  given  to  the  Church."  It  did  not  exist 
before  that;  nor  then,  for  it  was  not  until  August 
12th,  still  a  month  later  that  the  revelation  was 
even  read  to  a  single  quorum  ;  and  it  was  not  then 
read  by  direction  of  Joseph  Smith,  but  to  still  the 
the  inquiry  of  Dunbar  Wilson,  which  inquiry  was 
caused  by  rumors  which  he  placed  no  confidence 
in.  Worse  than  this,  that  so  called  revelation  was 
never  presented  to  the  Church  for  endorsement, 
sanction  and  adoption,  until  August  29th,  1852. 
The  statements  in  this  affidavit,  if  true,  so  far  as 
the  act  of  marriage,  or  sealing,  is  concerned,  state 
that  Joseph  Smith  was  a  bigamist,  having  mar- 
ried an  unmarried  woman  while  yet  his  legal  wife 
was  living.  This  was  sin  against  his  wife  Em- 
ma. If  he  afterward  cohabited  with  Emily  D.  P. 
Young,  he  sinned  secretly  against  my  mother. 
Now,  who  thus  makes  him  a  sinner,  you  who  as- 
sert and  believe  this  affidavit,  or  I  who  disbelieve 
and  deny  it? 

If  the  affidavit  is  true,  Joseph  Smith  transgress- 
ed two  well  accredited  rules  of  the  law  of  the 
church,  at  that  time  prevailing.  One  of  these 
rules  is  that  forbiding  to  have  more  than  one 
wife  living  at  the  same  time;  the  other  that,  which 
^ciares  that  "he  who  keeps  the  law  of  God  hath 
no  need  to  break  the  law  of  the  land."  If  the 
statement  that  Joseph  Smith  was  married  to  Em- 
ily D.  P.  Young  in  Nauvoo,  Illinois,  May  llth, 
1843,  is  true,  Joseph  Smith,  Emily  D.  P.  Young 
and  James  Adams  were  all  liable  to  prosecution 
for  violating  the  statutes  of  said  state  defining 
the  crime  of  bigamy  and  providing  the  penalties 
for  such  infraction  of  the  law.  Who  then  makes 
Joseph  Smith  a  transgressor,  you  who  believe  and 
affirm  such  things,  or  I  who  disbelieve  and  deny 
them? 

In  the  face  of  what  is  above  written,  how  can  you 
consistently  expect  a  man  whose  legal  training 
you  admit  gives  him  the  power  to  analyze  evi- 
dence and  give  it  true  weight,  to  recieve  as  con- 
clusive what  is  so  unsatisfactory  and  damaging 
to  your  own  cause. 

As  before,  while  I  do  not  accept  the  proofs  of- 
fered by  you  that  my  father  was  a  pluralist  or 
polygamist,  as  conclusive,  I  repeat  that  whether  he 
was,  or  was  not,  the  gospel  of  Christ  as  it  was 
taught  by  Christ  and  as  recommitted  through 
Joseph  Smith,  is  complete  and  sufficient  for  the 
salvation  of  man.  Nor  is  it  essential  to  the  valid- 
ity of  that  gospel  that  my  father  be  proved  to  be  a 
polygamist,  or  that  I  be  compelled  to  believe  that 
he  was. 

JOSEPH  SMITH. 

LAMONI,  Iowa,  Sept.  12th,  1883. 


For  further  information  on  the  above  subject,  address  me  at  Latnoni,  loiva. 


Printed  at  the  True  Latter  Day  Saints'  Herald  Office,  Lamoiii,  Decatur  Co.,  Iowa. 


Lithomount 
Pamphlet 

Binder 
Gaylord  Bros. 

Makers 

Stockton,  Calif. 
PAT.  JAN  21,  1908 


